Let me start off by saying that this conversion is exasperating, and
this will likely be my last message on the topic.

Firstly, let me define "peer group":  Any set of applications that
interpret data in a specific way and allows the user to view or
manipulate said interpretation in any specific way.

As an example, all applications which interpret data as pixel
information form a peer group.  Common features such as panning and
zooming should be the same across all these applications.  These
groups can be broken down further into "viewers" and "editors".
Editors can be broken down further into "raster" and "vector".  And
then "layered" versus "flat", etc.  As application groups get more
specific their shortcuts will by necessity diverge, but these peers
should have more shortcuts in common than not.

What does not matter within a peer group is what programming language
the application uses, what libraries it uses, what the primary
deployment platform is, what other applications someone may or may not
use with it, or what license the application is distributed under.
These are all immaterial to what the application _is_ or _does_ (which
also defines who uses it).

If there's confusion because I'm posting in a thread called "Photoshop
compatibility mode" let me apologize for confusing anyone and clearly
state that I am not suggesting this mode be adopted as the default
mode for GIMP.

I am also not suggesting blindly following "old Adobe products".
However, it is equally a mistake to blindly follow "old GIMP products"
when it's clear the rest of the world is moving to another set of
default keybindings.  The crux of my argument is simply that -
regardless of what we've become used to - it is beneficial to all
users - existing and future - to monitor default keybindings across
peer applications and mimic each other where appropriate.

I do like the page Alexandre put together on the Create wiki, but I do
not like that closed-source applications appear to have been excluded.
 I don't want to diverge into a Free Software "Purity" versus Open
Source "Practicality" debate but closed source applications are an
important part of the software ecosystem -- if for no other reason
than we're trying to provide a better alternative to them.  And
"better alternative" in no way, shape, or form means "clone".

One example given - the idiotic Microsoft <Ctrl>+<Insert> shortcuts
for cut/copy/paste - is a classic NIH problem, just like this might be
considered to be.  Maybe they thought they were saving DVORAK users
(where <Ctrl>+X,C,V isn't at all intuitive) when the rest of world had
moved on to QWERTY, but now there are keyboards that have moved the
<Insert> key onto the <FKey> row and doubled the size of the <Delete>
key!  (Mine is one of these monstrosities.)  The simple reality is
that things get easier for users when common assumptions are shared.

Some say that smart people learn from their mistakes; wise people
learn from the mistakes of others.

As to the GNOME HIG, that is a much broader topic.  If the GNOME HIG
has an entry that says "The 'R' key shall select the 'Rectangle
Selection' tool", I would say that it is over-specified and doomed to
failure.  Note that I am not saying that it is the case that it is -
just that it would be.

However, if an application is intended to be cross-platform, it should
conform to the conventions of that platform.  Very broadly, that means
on MacOS it should do the weird titlebar thing by default; it would do
single window mode on Windows; Ok/Cancel conventions would match the
platform; and as there really aren't that many expectations of what a
*nix system looks like, it can pretty much be whatever - but should
follow the GNOME HIG on GNOME and the KDE HIG on KDE ... ideally.  And
these HIGs should not have sections called anything like "Keyboard
shortcuts for raster image editors".

Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to